Re: No warning

From: Richard E Maine (nospam_at_see.signature)
Date: 01/10/05 

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:18:02 -0800

In article <crnud8$7fg$1@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM>,
 corbett@lupa.Sun.COM (Robert Corbett) wrote:

> It might not be the intended interpretation. Nonetheless, it is
> what the Fortran 2003 standard (or at least the DIS) says.

  [elaborates in detail]

I'm not going to argue with you further about the wording details on
this. I said that I think the wording of the standard is sloppy (one
might even say wrong) here and that it is not the intended
interpretation. Since I agree that the words are wrong, picking them
apart in detail isn't going to be very useful in changing my opinion.

Nor am I going to waste my time trying to construct an example proving
that the standard contradicts itself with your interpretation. I think I
probably could do so (starting with the resulting non-transitivity of
type equivalence), but I won't waste the time. because it doesn't really
matter. Even if it turns out that there isn't actually a direct
contradiction, I don't think this is the intended interpretation.

If you want a formal official interpretation, you know how to get it.
You have my opinion, which is as good as I can give you on this
newsgroup. I think that there is an error of wording in the standard
here. Frankly, I think the intention in this particular case is clear
enough that an official interp isn't needed, so no, I don't intend to
submit one. If you want to, you don't need my permission. And, of
course, you are also free to use your own interpretation without asking
for a formal interp (but don't expect my help in defending it if your
users bitch).
 
> I hope you are not making the claim that if no existing compiler
> catches a violation of the standard, then the violation is in
> fact standard-conforming.

No. I'm just making the claim that if everyone gets it right, then I
personally have higher priorities to work on than fixing wording which I
agree is broken, but doesn't appear broken enough to matter. 

-- 
Richard Maine                       |  Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain  |  experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov              |        -- Mark Twain

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Access to Objects
    ... identity of the lvalue in question was already clear. ... but it's still open to interpretation. ... wording places no restriction on order of evaluation. ... statements in the C99 standard. ...
    (comp.std.c)
  • Re: WANTED: Volunteer to Scan Old Programs
    ... BASIC to the American National Standard for Minimal BASIC, ... Implementation-defined features ... Error and exception reporting ... of interpretation, and Section 5 for information peculiar to ...
    (comp.os.cpm)
  • Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
    ... >PRIOR definition of a FIRST-ORDER LANGUAGE. ... standard definition? ... >purporting to be a definition would need to meet; definability would ... >In the first place, once there is more than one interpretation, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Learning Logic and Set Theory
    ... PRIOR definition of a FIRST-ORDER LANGUAGE. ... >>first-order theorems are INDEPENDENT of the interpretation. ... if there were a standard, YOU WOULD KNOW IT. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: i = 10; result = ++i - --i; How result become ZERO
    ... So your answer is to redefine the question because you can't cope with ... standard does not define what implementations are required to do. ... is open to interpretation by the implementation, ... The implementation in my head says the result should be 11 - 10 in the ...
    (comp.lang.c)